Chapter VI: Part II (2)

[120] Yezd, in central Persia, is the ancient Isatichæ of
Ptolemy. It is celebrated on account of the fire-worship of
_Yezdan_ (or Ormuzd, as light), there practised, and as the
last asylum of the adherents to Zoroaster’s religion, who
fled before the Muhammedans. From thence thefire-worshippers
sought a refuge in India, and settled in Diu, Bombay, and in
the higher valleys of the Indus and the Ganges.

[121] See vol. I. p. 71.

[122] See vol. I. p. 321.

[123] For instance, the _Utopia_ of Thomas Moore, the
_Oceana_ of Harrington, the _Leviathan_ of Hobbes, etc., etc.

§ IV.――THE RELIGION OF THE HINDUS.

The theatre upon which the author of the Dabistán begins history from the remotest times, is Persia, without limitation of its extent, probably including Chaldæa. From thence he passes to India, he says little of any other country; nothing at all of Egypt. The delta of this most fertile land, as an alluvial formation of the great river Nile, was necessarily posterior to the existence of inland regions; still its claims to antiquity are very high and not unsupported, to a certain extent, by the best written testimonies and architectural monuments. If I here refer in a cursory manner to its eras,[124] it is to strengthen what was above remarked concerning the general belief of the great age of the world. The ancient religion of Egypt, although connected and conformable in many points with other Asiatic religions, is never alluded to by the author of the Dabistán, probably because in his time the Egyptians had lost even the memory of their ancient history, which very little attracted the curiosity of their masters, the Muhammedans, except perhaps by the medium of the Bible of the Jews, often quoted in their Koran.[125]

I cannot here omit briefly noticing the various opinions of several learned men concerning the comparative antiquity of the Magi, the Egyptian priests, and the Hindu philosophers. Aristotle[126] believed the Magi more ancient than the Egyptians; Diodorus of Sicily[127] believed the Hindus to have never sent nor received colonies, and invented every art and science; Lucian, Philostratus[128], and Eusebius[129] granted anteriority in philosophy to the Hindus over the Egyptians. In our times the learned abbé Mignot established in three Memoirs[130], that the Hindus owed nothing to the Egyptians, and traced the true communications of the former with several nations of Asia and Europe. But sir W. Jones declared in 1785[131], as not ill-grounded, the opinion that Ethiopia and Hindostan were peopled or colonized by the same extraordinary race, or that the Ethiopians of Meroe were the same people as the Hindus. His opinion was reproduced under different forms by Hennel, Wilford, Forbes, Carwithen, among the English, and adopted by L. Langles among the French. I need not dwell upon this opinion, as the grounds upon which it rested are now considered as entirely destroyed. Sir W. Jones himself seems to have abandoned it in 1789,[132] as the Dabistán appeared to him to furnish an unexceptionable evidence, that the Iranian monarchy must have been the oldest in the world, although, he added, it will remain dubious to which of the three stocks, Hindu, Arabian, or Tartar, the first kings of Iran belonged; or whether they sprang from a fourth race, distinct from any of the others; He further states, that no country but Persia seems likely to have sent forth colonies to all the kingdoms of Asia, and that the three races (Indians, Arabs, Tartars) migrated from Iran as from their common country, “the true centre of population, of knowledge, of languages, and of arts; which, instead of travelling westward only, as it has been fancifully supposed, or eastward, as might with equal reason have been asserted, were expanded in all directions to all the regions of the world, in which the Hindu race had settled under various denominations.”

The second chapter of the Dabistán describes, in twelve sections, the religious systems and customs of the Hindus. It is a detailed account, given by a Persian who, as traveller and resident in India during about thirty years, had the best opportunities to collect right information; he shows himself acquainted with the canonical books of this nation; he quotes their Puránas, and other works less known.[133]

The Hindus are, among all nations, most particularly distinguished by a decided turn for metaphysics, which even tinctured the radicals of their language; they have labored more than others to solve, exhaust, comprehend, what is insolvible, inexhaustible, incomprehensible. To give a general notion of their metaphysical theology, I do not say to render it intelligible, would require an extensive treatise. We will now give a few characteristic and leading features of their systems as indicated in the Dabistán.

Some of their theological philosophers made incredible efforts to steer clear of anthropomorphism in their conceptions of the Divinity: their Brahm, in the neuter gender, has no symbol, nor image, nor temple; they generally profess the great principle of _emanation of all existences from a common but unknown source_. God is the producer of the beginning and end, exhibiting himself in the mirror of pure space. Creation is held to have proceeded from pure space and time. Other Hindu philosophers establish: 1. a primary, subtile, universal substance, undergoing modification through its own energy. This they call _Mula Prakritti_, “rudimental nature,” no production but the root of all, involving, 2. _seven principles_, which are productions and productive (that is, intellect, egotism, and five subtile elements); from these seven proceed: 3. _sixteen productions_ (to wit, eleven organs and five gross elements); to these just mentioned twenty-four (namely, Nature, seven principles and sixteen productions); add, 4. _the soul_, which is neither a production, nor productive, and you have the _twenty-five physical and metaphysical categories_ of the Sankhya philosophy.[134] This strikes us as a very specious methodical arrangement of an abstruse matter, which is not thereby in any degree rendered more intelligible.

We seem to understand something more when, as in the Vedenta philosophy, it is said of the truly-existing Being (God):[135] “that he has exhibited the “world and the heavens in the field of existence, but has nothing like an odor of being, nor taken a color of reality; and this manifestation is called _Máya_ that is, ‘the Magic of God,’ because the universe is his playful deceit, and he is the bestower of imitative existence, himself the unity of reality. With this pure substance, like an imitative actor, he passes every moment into another form. He, manifesting his being and unity in three persons, separate from each other, formed the universe. The connexion of the spirits with the holy Being is like the connexion of the billows with the ocean, or that of sparks with fire.” This is pure idealism; but man will spontaneously break through the shadowy illusion, and grasp at some reality; the trinity of the Hindus became _creation_, _preservation__, and _destruction_ (or renovation), the history of nature before their eyes.

I shall here remark, without attempting to explain, the striking contrast in the religion of the same nation between the most subtile metaphysic theology and the grossest idolatry. In the latter, the symbolical representation prevails; it is known, that in its immoderate use they have entirely abandoned the normal proportions of the human form, and by the multiplication of members banished all fitness and beauty. Their plastic and graphic typification of an all-mighty, all-bestowing, and all-resuming God, with its three, four, five heads, so many and more arms, is repulsive; in their poetry he frightens us with innumerable mouths, eyes, breasts, arms, and legs, grinding between his teeth the generations of men, who precipitate themselves into his mouth like rivers into the ocean, or flies into fire.[136]

The psychology of the Hindus is not less abstruse than the rest of their metaphysics. We have already mentioned the soul among the twenty-five categories as neither a production nor productive. The Indian philosophers distinguish spirit and soul, that is, a rational soul and a mere sensitive principle. The first is supposed enveloped with a subtile, shadowy form of the most delicate material ether. Some hold the soul to be incased in three sheaths, the intellectual, the mental, and the organic or vital sheath.[137] According to different views the vital spirit is _Máya_ herself, or an emanation of Máyá, in any case the illusive manifestation of the universe.

This ingenuous conception seems to have taken deep and complete possession of the Hindus; it dominates in their most subtile abstractions, and embodies itself in a thousand forms to their vivid and luxuriant imagination. The _Saktians_, a sect wedded to sensual materialism, represent Máyá as a _Saktí_ or energy of Siva; she is “the mother of the universe;” “non-entity finds no access to this creator, the garment of perishableness does not sit right upon the body of this fascinating empress; the dust of nothingness does not move round the circle of her dominion; the real beings and the accidental creatures of the nether world are equally enamoured and intoxicated with desire before her.” Above the six circles, into which the Hindus divide the human body, is “the window of life, and the passage of the soul, which is the top and middle of the head, and in that place is the _flower of the back_ of one thousand leaves: this is the residence of the glorious divinity, that is, of the world-deceiving queen, and in this beautiful site reposes her origin. With the splendor of one hundred thousand world-illuminating suns, she wears, at the time of rising, manifold odoriferous herbs and various flowers upon her head, and around her neck: her resplendent body is penetrated with perfumes of divers precious ingredients, such as musk, safran, sandal, and amber, and bedecked with magnificent garments; in this manner, she is to be represented.”[138] Thus we see the poetical imagination of the Hindus, playing, as it were, with abstruseness, materializing what is spiritual, and spiritualizing what is material.

Characteristic of and peculiar to the Hindus, are their conceptions relative to the states of the embodied soul, which are chiefly three: “_waking_, _dreaming_, and _profound sleep_.”[138] In these three conditions the soul is imprisoned, but it may, by virtue and sanctity, break the net of illusion, that is, acquire the consciousness of the illusion which captivates it, and know that, even when awake, man is dreaming: this is the triumph of his perfection.

Such, and other notions, in their development and application, form a system of metaphysics, in which excess and abuse of refined speculations lose themselves in obscurity, contradiction, and absurdity.

Among the Indian sectaries appear the _Charvak_, who, rejecting the popular religion, follow their own system of philosophic opinions.

Of _Buddha_ and the _Buddhists_, we are disappointed to find so little in the Dabistán, except the important information that Vichnu, in order to destroy the demons and evil genii, the agents of night, assumed the avatár of Buddha when ten years only of the Dwaparyug remained, that is, 3112 years before Christ. In the section on the tenets held by the followers of Buddha, these religionists are called _Jatis_ or _Yatis_, a great number of whom are corn-traders and get their livelihood as servants; they are divided in several classes, and do not believe the incarnations of the deity; as to the rest, they have tenets and customs in common with other Indian sects, only distinguishing themselves by a great aversion to Brahmans, and an extreme care of not hurting animal life.

In the whole account, which the Dabistán gives of the various sects and doctrines of the Hindus, we can but remark a frequent confusion of Indian with Muhammedan notions and stories. Indeed, this work having been written in India at a time when, after a sojourn of more than seven centuries, about twenty millions of Muselmans appeared, as it were, lost in the midst of one hundred millions of Hindus, we cannot wonder that a mutual assimilation in opinions and customs took place among individuals of both religions. A remarkable instance of it presents itself in the person of _Kabir_, renowned in his time for sanctity. After his death, both the Hindus and Muhammedans claimed his corpse for funeral honors; monuments erected to him by each party exist in our days, with the proverbial precept which originated from this event:

“Live so as to be claimed after death to be burnt by Hindus,
and to be buried by Muslims.”

The Indian Yogis, Sanyásis, and Vairagis are perpetually confounded with Muhammedan Durvishes, and Sufis, of whom hereafter.

We do not fail to meet with many traces of the ancient Persian astrolatry and pyrolatry among the Indians. Mohsan mentions the _Surya-makhan_ (_Sauras_), “worshippers of the sun,” and periphrases, as addressed to that luminary, a Sanscrit prayer, which seems to be one of those called _gayátri_, the holiest verses of the Vedas, kept as mysterious by the Brahmans, and pronounced with the deepest sense of concentrated devotion. In our days, more than one _gayátri_ has been made known.[139] We cannot doubt that (according to the poet)[140]――

“That vast source of liquid light, the ethereal sun, which
perpetually laves heaven with ever-renewed brightness,”

was, from the remotest times, the object of adoration in India. The Dabistán mentions also the _Chandra-bakhtra_, “worshippers of the moon.” Even in our days we find the veneration for the sun, the planets, and fire, openly practised by the Hindus. The worshippers of the latter elements called _Sagníkas_, are very numerous at Benares;[141] they keep many _agni-hotras_, “burnt-offerings,” continually blazing; they kindle, with two pieces of sacred wood, called _sámi_, a fire, never extinguished during their lives, for the performance of solemn sacrifices, their nuptial ceremonies, the obsequies of departed ancestors, and their own funeral pile. There are besides particular worshippers of the wind, water, earth, and the three kingdoms of nature. The latter are called _Tripujas_, “trinitarians.” We find also _Manushya-bhakta_, “worshippers of mankind,” who recognise the being of God in man, and believe nothing to be more perfect than mankind; like _Channing_, a famous American preacher of our days. In short, the worship of personified nature, in its utmost extent, is most evident in what we know of the Vedas, and never ceased to be the general religion of the Hindus.

Not without interest will be read in the Dabistán the account of _Nanak_,[142] the founder of the Sikh religion and domination. He is there represented as having been, in a former age, _Janaka_, sovereign of Mithila, and father of Sitá, the wife of Rama. The revolution effected by Nanak, in the middle of the sixteenth century, proves that the Hindus are not quite so unchangeable in religion and customs as is generally believed. It is however to be remarked, that the Panj-ab, the country of the Sikhs, was always considered by the Brahmans as the seat of heterodoxy (probably Buddhism), and blamed for irregularity of manners. Mohsan’s account will be found to add confirmation and a few particulars to that given of Nanak, from the best sources――the generals sir John Malcolm, and John Briggs.

What will appear most valuable in this work is the description of various usages, some of which have never been described elsewhere. The most ancient customs are brought to recollection. Thus, we find stated, on the authority of Maha bharat, that widows could formerly take other husbands――married women, with the consent of their husbands, maintain intercourse with other men――several individuals, of the same race and religion, espouse one wife among them;――in ancient times there existed no such practice as appropriation of husband and wife; every woman being allowed to cohabit with whomsoever she liked; conjugal fidelity was only in later times made a duty. Much of what he describes may be seen, even in our days, in India, where all the degrees of civilisation which the Hindus ever attained, from the lowest to the highest, occur here and there within a small compass of country. So constant are they in good and bad! The whole of antiquity is still living in India, and Herodotus stands confirmed in what appeared most incredible in his narrative by the testimonies of Mohsan Fáni, the reverend abbe Dubois,[143] Ward, and others. The Persian author intersperses his account with anecdotes which characterise in the most lively manner individuals, sects, and tribes. If now and then we must avert our eyes from disgusting scenes of human degradation, more frequently we admire man, even in his errors, for the power and command of the mental over the physical part of his nature. The naked Yogi, who inflicts the most cruel tortures upon himself, wants but a better motive for being justly extolled as a hero of fortitude; death appears to him an habitual companion, into whose arms he sinks without fear; overpowered by malady, he buries himself alive.

We may be astonished at the number of unbelievers among the Hindus of whom we read, and at the licentiousness of their opinions, expressed with a strength which we should think carried to excess.[144] We perceive also that, in contradiction to common belief, in the midst of the seventeenth century, when the Dabistán was composed (1645 A. D.) a numerous class of Indians assumed the name of Muselmans, but it must be remarked, that the Hindus neither endeavor to make, nor easily admit, proselytes: because their religion depends much less upon creed, in which they are latitudinarians, than upon the fixed customs of their castes, the character of which, being derived from birth, cannot be transferred to strangers.[145] We shall see hereafter in what manner Hindus and Muhammedans may be confounded with each other.

So much of India being known in our days, we have the facility of trying the veracity and correctness of the Dabistán concerning this country. Its account will be found, I dare say, rather incomplete in the small compass in which so extensive a subject was inclosed, but not inaccurate in the greatest part of its various statements. Sir W. Jones[146] bears Mohsan Fani the testimony, “that his information concerning the Hindus is wonderfully correct.” Let us compare the account given by him with all that has been published about India by the best instructed Europeans before the foundation of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and we shall regret that the Dabistán was brought into notice so late. Whatever it be, the particular views of a Persian, through a medium of education, religion, and custom, so different from that through which we consider India, can but interest us by their novelty, and by themselves add something to our information about the character of Asiatics.

[124] According to Manetho, a high-priest of Heliopolis, the
Egyptians counted 53,525 years; they saw twice the sun set
where he now rises――they saw (as well as the Chaldeans) the
ecliptic perpendicular upon the equator before 39,710 years.
Herodotus (lib. II) attributes to them, more moderately,
15,882 historical years.

[125] The history of Joseph, Pharaoh, Moses in Egypt, is
often referred to by Muhammed and his followers; they state
that the Egyptian king professed a religion unlike that
mentioned by Greek authors, with whom the Bible also
disagrees. In general, monotheism is adverse to the
examination of polytheistical systems, and seldom accurate
in the representation of their tenets.

[126] Quoted by Diogenes Laertius, _Prœm._, p. 6.

[127] Lib. II. p. 113. edit. Wossel.

[128] Vita Apol. c. 6.

[129] _Chron. lib. post._, n. 400.

[130] _Mémoires de Littérature de l’Académie royale des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres_, tome XXXI.

[131] Works, vol. III. p. 41.

[132] Ibid., pp. 111. 134.

[133] Such is the Jog-Vasishta, mentioned (vol. II. pp. 28
and 256) as a very ancient book. Sir W. Jones calls it one
of the finest compositions on the philosophy of the Vedanta
school; it contains the instructions of the great Vasishta
to his pupil Rama. Lord Teignmouth says, that several
Persian versions of this work exist, and quotes some
passages of them, which, compared with the original
Sanscrit, were found substantially accurate.

[134] See the detailed table of it, vol. II. p. 122.

[135] Vol. II. pp. 91-92.

[136] See _Bhagavad-gita_, vv. 16. 23. 28. 29. Schlegel’s ed.

[137] vol. II. p. 24.

[138] See vol. II. pp. 150-151.

[139] That which sir W. Jones quotes (see Works, vol. XIII.
p. 367) is, perhaps, most to be depended upon.

[140] Lucretius, V. v. 282:
Largus item liquidi fons luminis, æthereus sol,
Irrigat assiduè cœlum candore recenti.

[141] Sir W. J., Works, vol. III. p. 127.

[142] Vol. II. pp. 246-288.

[143] See _Mœurs, Institutions et Cérémonies des Peuples de
l’Inde; par M. l’abbé J. A. Dubois, ci-devant missionnaire
dans le Meissour_. Paris, 1825. This work was first
published in the English language, London, 1816. It had been
translated from the author’s French manuscript, which lord
William Bentinck, governor of Madras, purchased on the
account of the East India Company, in 1807. This composition
received the approbation of major Wilks, resident of
Maissour, sir James Mackintosh, and William Erskine, Esq.;
to which I am happy to add the most decisive judgment of the
honorably-known Brahman, Ram Mohun Roy, whom I often heard
say: “The European who best knew the Hindus, and gave the
most faithful account of them, was the abbé Dubois.”

[144] See vol. II. p. 201.

[145] The celebrated Ram Mohun Roy had abandoned all the
tenets, but remained as much as possible attached to the
customs, of his Brahminical caste.

[146] His Works, vol. IV. p. 16.

§ V.――RETROSPECT OF THE PERSIAN AND INDIAN RELIGIONS.

I have endeavored to trace the most remarkable features of Persian and Indian religions from among those which are contained in the Dabistán. In them we recognise resemblances, and, in more than one point, even coincidences, which appear not merely taken from each other in the course of time, but rather originally inwoven in the respective institutions. This may be explained, partly by the general probability that nations, passing through the same stages of civilisation, might agree in several parts of religion, politics, and philosophy, and chiefly by the fact, now generally admitted among the learned,[147] that in very remote times, a union of all the Arian nations, among whom the Persians and Indians are counted, existed in the common regions of central Asia. Sir W. Jones[148] goes so far as to say: “We cannot doubt that the book of Mahabad, or Manu, written in a celestial dialect, means the Veda.” William von Schlegel most ingeniously surmises,[149] “that the name of _Zand_ may be but a corruption of the Sanscrit word _chhandas_, one of the most usual names of the Vedas.” The fourteen Mahabadians are to him: “Nothing else but the fourteen Manus, past and future, of the Brahmanical mythology.”[150] Thus we should have to thank Mohsan Fani for a confirmation of the above-stated historical fact; the _Mahabadians_ were nothing else but _Mahabodhis_, in good Sanscrit, “great deified teachers;” he would have placed them, as did lately Burnouf, Lassen, and Charles Ritter, somewhere on the highlands of Iran, and he _invented_ nothing.

From the ante-historical dynasties descending to later times, let us consider that, according to respectable traditions,[151] there existed friendly and hostile relations between Iran and Persia in the time of the Iranian king _Feridun_, 1729 years before our era: he reconducted with an army a fugitive Indian prince, and rendered India tributary. Two other invasions took place under the Persian monarch _Manucheher_,[152] after which the Indians recovered their liberty. Under Kai Kobad[153] flourished Rustum, who ruled, beside other countries, Sejistan and Kabul, conquered the Panj-áb, and carried war into the bosom of Arya varta. This country was also attacked by Afrasiab, a Turan prince,[154] then possessor of Persia. Ferdusi’s Shah-namah indicates expeditions of Feramurs, a son of Rustum, to India, under the reign of Kai Khosrú. We arrive at the epoch of Gushtasp, who ordered the Indus to be explored, and although he had not, as Herodotus asserts,[155] conquered the Indians, he entertained religious relations with that nation. After Alexander’s conquest of Persia, Sassan, the son of Dara, retired to Hind, where, devoted to the service of God, he died.[156] After a very obscure period of Persian history, Ardeshir, directed by a dream, brought an offspring of Sassan from Kabulistan to Istakhar. We cannot doubt that at all times a communication was open between Iran and India, where Bahram Gor married an Indian princess, and whence Nushirvan received a celebrated book and the game of chess. In our seventh century, the Muhammedan Arabians, driven by the spirit of conquest, turned their arms towards India, but stopped on the borders of the Indus. It was reserved to Muhammedan Moghuls, mixed with Persians, to establish in the midst of India an empire which, after eight hundred years, disjoined by various disorders, fell into the hands of the English.

This rapid sketch is perhaps sufficient to explain any mixture, fusion, and resemblance of Persian and Indian doctrines and institutions, if even we were not disposed to seek their fountain-head in the sacred gloom of the remotest antiquity. Whatever it be, in any case, it will no more be said, that the Dabistán was written “with the intention to claim for Persia the pre-eminence over India, concerning the antiquity of religious revelations.”[157] In fact, Mohsan Fani never explicitly alludes to a comparative antiquity between the Persians and Indians, and implicitly acknowledges the anteriority of the Indian religion over the Zoroastrian, in a part of Persia at least, by relating that Gushtasp was converted from the former to the latter by Zardusht, by whom also the Indian sage, _Sankhara atcharya_, was vanquished.

After a more accurate examination, the resemblance between the said religions will be found to exist certainly in particular principles and tenets, but not at all in the general character or the spirit of these religious systems. Nothing can be more dissimilar than the austerity of Mezdaism and the luxuriancy of Hinduism in the development of their respective dogmas, and particularly in their worship, as was already observed.[158] We cannot however deny, that not a little of the similarity in the account of different religions belongs to the author of the Dabistán, who most naturally confounded the ideas of his own with those of more ancient times, and used expressions proper to his particular creed when speaking of that of others. Thus he employs very often the term _angels_ for that of divinities, and carries the mania of allegorising, so peculiar to the later Muhammedan Súfis, into his description of the Indian mythology. This sort of substitution, or these anachronisms of expression, are to be remarked in the narrative of other authors, praised for general correctness and veracity; I can here so much the more readily call to mind similar inaccuracies in the accounts which Greek historians, and in particular the philosophic Xenophon, gave of Persia, as I may add, that in many points they agree with our Mohsan Fani.

[147] See above, p. 76.

[148] His Works, vol. IV. p. 105.

[149] _Loco cit._, p. 69.

[150] _Ibid._, p. 51. Among the Persians is even found
_Behesht-i-Gang_, and _Gang-diz_, “the Paradise,” and “the
castle of Ganga” (Hyde, p. 170).――Mr. Julius Mohl says
(_Journal asiatique, mars_ 1841, p. 281): “Zohac is the
representative of a Semitical dynasty, which in Persia took
place of the _Indian_ dynasty, and overthrew the entirely
_Brahmanical_ institutions of Jamshid.” We see the opinion
that Hinduism once resided in Iran daily gaining ground.

[151] The History of Hindostan, etc., by Alex. Dow, 1768, t.
I. p. 12 _et seq._ The same, by J. Briggs, 1829. Introd.,
ch. p. xiv. _et seq._

[152] The Mandauces of Ctesias and of Moses of Chorene. He
reigned, according to Ferdusi, B. C., from 1229-1109;
according to our chronogers, from 730-715.

[153] The Arphaxad of the Hebrews; the Dejoces of Herodotus;
the Arsæus of Ctesias; he is placed B. C. 1075 by the
Orientals; 696 years by the Occidentals.

[154] All kings of Turan were called Afrasiáb.

[155] Lib. IV.

[156] See _The Desátir_, Engl. trans., p. 185.

[157] See before, p. 75.

[158] See page 102.

§ VI.――THE RELIGION OF THE TABITIAN (TIBETANS).

The third chapter of the Dabistán treats of the religion of the _Kera Tabitán_ (Tibitans). The author says that he received his information from a learned man of this sect by means of an interpreter, who did not always satisfy his inquiries; the little he says appears to belong to a class of Buddhistic Hinduism, and not to be destitute of truth.

§ VII.――THE RELIGION OF THE JEWS.

Then follows, in the fourth chapter, a short account of the religion of the Yahuds or Jews. The author derived his notion from a Rabbin converted to Muhammedism, and states nothing which was not really professed by one of the Jewish sects, which, in his summary narration, he does not distinguish. He gives a Persian translation of the first five chapters, and a part of the sixth chapter of the Genesis from the Hebrew original; a comparison of it with several other translations known in Europe, proves its general accuracy; I thought it not altother unimportant to point out the few variations which occur.

§ VIII.――THE RELIGION OF THE CHRISTIANS.

It is not without great interest that an European Christian will peruse the fifth chapter, in which a Persian treats of the religion of the _Tarsas_, that is, “Christians.” Mohsan Fani declares, that he saw several learned Christians, such as the Padre _Francis_,[159] highly esteemed by the Portuguese in Goa and in Surat. We can scarce doubt, that it was from that father, or some other Roman Catholic missionary, that he received his information; as he portrays particularly the Roman Catholic doctrine, of which, in my opinion, he exhibits a more faithful idea than that which a great number of Protestants entertain, and are wont to express.

Every Christian may be satisfied with the picture of his religion, which, although contracted in a small compass, is nevertheless faithfully drawn by a foreign but impartial hand. Mohsan Fani, in seventeen pages of our translation, states only a few circumstances of the life of Jesus Christ, and a few dogmas relative to him as son of God, and the second person of the holy Trinity. In the account of seven sacraments, the eucharist is characterised in a manner which will not fail to attract attention.[160] Scarce any rites or ceremonies are mentioned; the greatest part of the statement relates to the moral precepts of Christianity, which presents an advantageous contrast with the many absurd and superstitious duties, with which other religions are encumbered. Thus, we find confirmed in the Dabistán that the Pentateuch of the Jews and the Gospel of the Christians were both sufficiently familiar to Muhammedans who had any pretension to learning.

[159] Probably a Portuguese. From him Mohsan Fani might have
received the information (see vol. II. p. 307) that an image
of St. Veronica is preserved in a town of Spain, probably
within the year 1641, before it was known in India that
Portugal had freed itself from the domination of Spain,
which event took place on the 1st December, 1640. On that
account, the father spoke of the peninsular sovereign as
still possessor of both kingdoms, and, instead of calling
him _king of Spain_, styled him _king of Portugal_, from
fond partiality for his native country. This remark was
suggested to me by the learned viscount of Santarem.――(See
vol. II. pp. 307. 308, note 1.)

[160] See vol. II. p. 315. “The holiest of all the
sacraments, as it presents the Lord Jesus under the form of
bread, that it may become the power of the soul.” This
definition was most likely not that which Mohsan Fani heard
from father Francis, but the intelligent Persian might have
understood that a strong and lively representation of an
object is equivalent to its _real presence_, which latter
words must have been those used, as orthodox, by a Roman
Catholic priest.

§ IX.――THE RELIGION OF THE MUSELMANS.

The author of the Dabistán, after having treated of the most ancient religions, passes to the comparatively modern religious system of Arabia. The Arabians, although frequently attacked, were never conquered by the Assyrians, Medians, Persians, or Romans; they maintained their political independance, but could not avoid nor resist the religious influence of nations with whom they were, during ages, in various relations. The ancient history of Arabia is lost, like that of many other nations; so much is known of their oldest religion, that it resembled that of the Persians and Hindus: it was the Magism or Sabæism; the stars were worshipped as idols from the remotest times; we read of antediluvian idols. At the time, which we now consider, that is the seventh century of our era, all the then existing religions seemed to be far remote from their original simplicity and purity;[161] idolatry was dominant, and Monotheism preserved and positively professed only in Judaism and Christianity, although likewise corrupted by various kinds of superstition. Followers of both these religions were settled in Arabia, to which region the Jews fled from the cruel destruction of their country by the Romans; and the Christians, on account of the persecutions and disorders which had arisen in the Eastern church.

We see by what facts, circumstances, and notions Muhammed was acted upon, whilst nourishing his religious enthusiasm by solitary contemplation in the cavern of mount Hara, to which he was wont to retire for one month in every year. In his fortieth year, at the same age at which Zoroaster began to teach 600 years before Christ (according to some chronologers), Muhammed, as many years after the Messiah, assumed the prophetic mission to reform the Arabians. He felt the necessity of seizing some safe and essential dogmas in the chaos of Magian, Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian notions; broke all the figures of planets in the temple of Mecca, and declared the most violent war against all plastic, graven, and painted idols; he left undisturbed only the _black stone_, Saturn’s emblem before, and at the time when the Jewish traditions claimed it for Abraham, and even transported it to heaven. Muhammed preferred the latter to the more ancient superstition; as to the rest, he abhorred the prevailing idolatry of the Sabaians; and blamed the corruption of monotheism in the Jews and Christians. He felt in himself the powerful spirit, and undertook to re-establish the _Touhid_, “the unity and spiritualism of God;” he preached with enthusiastic zeal the _Islam_, “devotedness und resignation to God.”

But, in order to found and to expand the great and necessary truths, he knew no other means, but to attach the believers to his own person, and to accustom them to blind obedience to his dictates; he proclaimed: “There is no God but God, and Muhammed is his prophet;” he gave them the Koran, the only holy book, in which his precepts were as many commands proclaimed under the penalty of eternal damnation. In the Muhammedan all spontaneity is stifled; all desire, all attempt to be self-convinced is interdicted; every thing becomes exterior, the religious and civil Code but one.

Muhammed seemed not to know that religion cannot be the gift, as it is not the property, of any single man; it belongs to mankind. Any particular creed lives only by its inherent force, independently of the founder, who retires and leaves nothing behind him but his name as a mere distinction from that of another religion. Every individual action is of little avail, if it does not proceed from the free and pure impulse of the spirit, which must revive in all succeeding generations. This is acknowledged in the Dabistán[162] by giving a very philosophic explanation of the expression _prophetic seal_, or “the last of prophets:” “That which is reared up by superior wisdom, renders the prophet’s knowledge vain, and takes his color; that is to say: if one hundred thousand prophets like himself realise in themselves the person of superior wisdom, they are possessors of the seal, the last prophets, because it is superior wisdom which is the seal, and they know themselves to be _effaced_, and superior wisdom existing.” Muhammed, although wise enough to connect himself with other prophets, his predecessors, pretended however to close the series, and to be the last of prophets, or “the seal of prophetism.”

Vain project! immediately after him violent contests arose,

“And discord, with a thousand various mouths.”

Thirty years after his death his family was dispossessed of the Khalifat. This passed to the Moaviyahs, who, residing in Damascus, kept it during 90 years, and then ceded it to the Abbasides, who established their seat at Baghdad. The impulse and development of the Islam was overwhelming during the one hundred and twenty years after the prophet’s death; the mighty spirit of conquest had arisen and was――I shall not say irresistible――but certainly badly resisted by the nations assailed. The Romans and Persians were then hard pressed themselves; on the West by the Goths, on the East by the Huns:――whilst the Greeks had sunk into general luxury and degeneracy; all feebly sustained the attack of hardy and active men, whose native habit of rapine and devastation was then exalted and sanctified by the name of religion, and continually invigorated by rich, splendid, and easy conquests. Thus, the khalifs, who were divided into two great lines, the before-mentioned _Abbasides_ and the _Fatimites_, extended their empire within 600 years after Muhammed, not only over the greatest part of Asia, but also along the western shore of Africa, Egypt, Spain, and Sicily; threatening the rest of Europe.

After the first labors, came rest, during which the genius of the Arabs turned to persevering study, deep speculation, and noble ambition: this was the scientific age of the Arabs, which began in the middle of our eighth century, and was most conspicuous in the old seats of learning, Babylonia, Syria, Egypt, Persia, and India. But in the numerous schools rose violent schisms and bloody contests between philosophy and religion. In the mean time the khalifs, by becoming worldly sovereigns, had lost their sacred character, and were in contradiction with the principle of their origin. The crusades of the Christians, by reviving their martial energy, maintained for some time the vacillating power of the Khalifs, but their vast and divided empire, assailed by Pagan nations, first in the West in 1211, and forty-seven years afterwards in the East, fell in 1258 of our era. Muhammedism however revived in the barbarous and energetic conquerors, Turks, Seljuks, Albanese, Kurds, Africans, who were drawn into its circle; and science was again cultivated in Tunis, Bulgaria, and India.

I thought necessary to draw this rapid historical sketch, because within its outlines is contained the account of the Muhammedan sects as given in the text of the Dabistán.

Mohsan Fani himself lived in the age of general decline of Muhammedism. He exhibits in the sixth chapter the religion of his own nation: we may expect that he will be true and accurate. He divides the chapter into two sections: the first treats of the creed of the Sonnites; the second, of that of the Shiâhs. These are the two principal sects of the Muhammedans, but divided into a number of others, exceeding that of seventy-three, which Muhammed himself has announced, and consigned, all except one, to eternal damnation. This one was that of the _sonnah_ “the traditional law,” or _Jamaât_, “the assembly.” The Dabistán explains this religion in a manner which, to Muhammedans, might appear sufficiently clear, in spite of digressions and want of order in the arrangement of the matter; but an European reader will desire more light than is afforded in the text, and feel himself perplexed to understand the meaning of frequent technical terms, and to connect the various notions disseminated in an unequal narrative――now too diffuse, now too contracted. The following are the principal features of the long account of Muhammedism contained in the Dabistán.

Immediately after the promulgation of the Koran, which followed Muhammed’s death, it became necessary to fix the meaning and to determine the bearing of its text. There was one theme in which all agreed: the grandeur, majesty, and beneficence of one supreme Being, the Creator, ruler, and preserver of the world, which is the effulgence of his power. This is expressed in the Koran in such a strain of sublimity as may unite men of all religions in one feeling of admiration. This excellence is an inheritance of the most ancient Asiatic religion. God can but be always the object of boundless adoration, but never that of human reasoning. Hence the Muhammedan sects disagreed about the attributes of God.

The residence assigned, although inconsistently with pure spiritualism, to the supreme Being was the ninth heaven; an eighth sphere formed the intermediate story between the uppermost heaven and seven other spheres, distributed among so many prophets, in the same manner as, in the Desátir, the seven prophet kings of the Péshdadian dynasty were joined to the seven planets which they, each one in particular, venerated. Numberless angels, among whom four principal chiefs, fill the universe, and serve, in a thousand different ways, the supreme Lord of creation. We recognisee the notions of the ancient Persian religion in this, and in the whole system of divine government.

Another subject of violent and interminable dispute was God’s action upon the nether world, principally upon mankind, or God’s universal and eternal judgment, commonly called _predestination_. This subject was greatly agitated by the _Matezalas_, _Kadarians_, _Jabarians_, and others; they disputed

“_Of providence, foreknowledge. will, and fate,
Fix’d fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute,
And found no end, in wand’ring mazes lost._”

Although this subject appears to be connected with the Zoroastrian doctrine of the two principles, “good and bad,” yet it has never been agitated with so much violence in so many particular ways by any religionists as by the Muhammedans.

It has already been observed that, according to tradition, the ancient Persian philosophy was carried in the reign of Alexander to Greece, and from thence, after having been recast in the mould of Greek genius, returned in translations to its original country. We find it expressly stated in the Dabistán, that Plato and Aristotle were acknowledge as the founders of two principal schools of Muhammedan philosophers, to wit, those of the _Hukma ashrákín_, “Platonists,” and the _Hukma masháyín_, “Aristotelian, or Peripatetics.” To these add the Súfí’s _matsherâin_, “orthodox Sufis,” who took care not to maintain any thing contrary to revelation, and exerted all their sagacity to reconcile passages of the Koran with sound philosophy. This was the particular profession of the _Matkalmin_, “scholastics.” These cede to no other philosophers the palm of mastering subtilties and acute distinctions. They had originally no other object but that of defending their creed against the heterodox philosophers. But they went further, and attacked the Peripatetics themselves with the intention to substitute another philosophy for theirs. It may be here sufficient to call to mind the works of three most celebrated men, _Alfarabi_, _Ibn Sina_ (Avisenna), and _Ghazali_, whose works are reckoned to be the best specimens of Arabian and Muhammedan philosophy.[163] They contain three essential parts of orthodox dogmatism: 1. _ontology_, _physiology_, and _psychology_; these together are called “the science of possible things;” 2. _theology_, that is, the discussion upon the existence, essence, and the attributes of God; as well as his relations with the world and man in particular; 3. _the science of prophetism_, or “revealed theology.” All these subjects are touched upon in the Dabistán, but in a very desultory manner. I shall add, that the author puts in evidence a sect called _Akhbárín_, or “dogmatic traditionists,” who participate greatly in the doctrine of the Matkalmin, and in his opinion are the most approvable of all religious philosophers.

The contest for the khalifat between the family of Ali, Muhammed’s son-in-law, and the three first khalifs, as well as the families of Moaviah and Abbas, a contest which began in the seventh century, and appears not yet terminated in our days――this contest, so much more violent as it was at once religious and political, occasioned the rise of a great number of sects. Much is found about Ali in the Dabistán, and even an article of the Koran,[164] published no where else relative to this great Muselman, which his adversaries are said to have suppressed. The adherents of Ali are called _Shiâhs_.

The Persians, after being conquered by the Arabs, were compelled to adopt the Muhammedan religion, but they preserved a secret adherence to Magism, their ancient national creed, they were therefore easily disposed to join any sect, which was more or less contrary to the standard creed of their conquerors, and bore some slight conformity, or had the least connection with, their former religion. They became Shiâhs.

Among these sectaries originated the particular office of _Imám_, whose power partook of something of a mysterious nature: the visible presence of an Imám was not required; he could, although concealed, be acknowledged, direct and command his believers; his name was _Mahdi_, “the director.” This opinion originated and was spread after the sudden disappearance of the seventh Imám, called _Ismâil_. His followers, the Ismâilahs, maintained that he was not dead; that he lived concealed, and directed the faithful by messages, sent by him, and brought by his deputies; that he would one day reappear, give the victory to his adherents over all other sects, and unite the world in one religion. More than one Mahdi was subsequently proclaimed in different parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe――always expected, never appearing――so that it became a proverbial expression among the Arabs to denote tardiness: “_as slow as a Mahdi_.” We recognize in this an ancient idea of Zoroaster: he too was to reappear in his sons at the end of 12,000 years; rather late,――but mankind never tire of hope and expectation.

A creed, like that of the _Ismâilahs_, because founded upon something mysterious, vague, and spiritual, was likely to branch out in most extraordinary conceptions and practices. The Dabistán abounds with curious details about them. Their doctrine bore the character of duplicity: one part was manifest, the other concealed. Their manner of making proselytes was not open; they acted in the dark. They first induced the neophyte to doubt, then to despise his own creed, and at last to exchange it for apparently more sublime truths, until, after having sufficiently emboldened his reasoning faculty, they enabled him to throw off every restraint of authority in religious matters. We see in the Dabistán,[165] the degrees through which an Ismâilah was to pass until he believed in no religion at all.

A most remarkable sect of the Ismâilahs was that of the _Almutians_, so called from _Alamut_, a hill-fort in the Persian province of _Ghilan_. This fort was the seat of _Hassan_, a self-created Imám, and became the capital of an empire, perhaps unique in the history of the world.[166] An Imám, called by Europeans “the old man of the mountain,” without armies, or treasures, commanded the country around, and terrified a great part of Asia by a band of devoted adherents, whom he sent about to propagate his religion, and to execute his commands, which were frequently the murder of his enemies. The executioners were unknown save at the fatal moment of action; mighty khalifs and sultans met with their murderers among their most intimate servants, or the guardians of their doors, in the midst of crowded public places or in the solitude of their secret bed-chambers. The _Fedayis_, so were they called, devoted themselves not only to the sacred service of their Imám, but hired their arm also for profane service to foreign chiefs, such as the Christian crusaders. Among Europeans, these Ismâilahs were known under the name of _Assassins_, which well answered their infamous profession, but is better derived from _Hashishah_[167], a sort of hemp, from which they extracted an intoxicating beverage for their frequent use. During one hundred and sixty years the Ismâilahs were the terror of the weak and the mighty, until they fell in one promiscuous slaughter, with the khalif of Islámism, under the swords of the ferocious invaders who, issuing from the vast steppes of Tartary, fell upon the disordered empire of the Muhammedans.

The Ismâilahs, and other sects connected with them, professed a great attachment to an Imám, whose lineage was always traced up to Ali through a series of intermediate descendants; but it belonged to the _Ali-Ilahians_ to deify Ali himself, or to believe his having been an incarnation of God.

Another sect, the _Ulviahs_, also devoted to Ali, maintain that he was united with the sun, that he is now the sun, and having also been the sun before, he was for some days only united to an elemental body. Both these sects reject the Koran.

Here terminates the review of the second volume of the English Dabistán.

[161] See, in what sense, pp. 83-84.

[162] See vol. III. pp. 202-203. See also _ibid._, p. 229
and note 2.

[163] See upon this subject a recent very ingenious work:
_Essai sur les Écoles philosophiques chez les Arabes, et
notamment sur la doctrine d’Algazzalí, par Auguste
Schmölders, docteur en philosophie_, Paris, 1842. Dedicated
to M. Reinaud, member of the Institute of France, and
professor of Arabic.

[164] See vol. II. p. 368.

[165] Vol. II. pp. 404-407.

[166] See vol. II. p. 433 _et seq._

[167] See _Mémoires géographiques et historiques sur
l’Égypte et sur quelques contrées voisines, par Étienne
Quatremère_, vol. II. p. 504. 1811.

§ X.――THE RELIGION OF THE SADIKIAHS.

The third volume of this work begins with the seventh chapter, upon the religion of the _Sadikiahs_. It is generally known that, during the life of Muhammed, another prophet, called Musaylima, arose in the country of Yamáma, and dared offer to himself in a letter to the former as a partner of his sacred mission, but was treated as a liar. He had however gained a great number of followers, at the head of whom he was defeated and himself slain in a bloody battle against Khaled, a general of the first Khalif, the very same year as Muhammed’s death. We find in the Dabistán, what appears less generally known, that Musaylima’s sect, far from being entirely crushed after his fall, existed under the name of _Sadikias_ in the seventeenth century of our era, and conformed to a second _Faruk_, or Koran, to which they attributed a divine origin, and a greater authority than to the first.[168]

Another account, not frequently met with, is contained in the eighth chapter of the Dabistán, concerning _Vahed Mahmud_, who appeared in the beginning of our thirteenth century, and is by his adherents placed above Muhammed and Ali. Among his tenets and opinions is to be remarked that of an ascending refinement or perfection of elemental matter, from the brute or mineral to that of a vegetable form; from this to that of an animal body; and thence progressing to that of Mahmud.[169] Further, the particular mode of transmigration of souls by means of food into which men, after their death, are changed; such food, _in which intelligence and action may reside_, becomes continually the aliment and substance of new successive human beings. We were not a little astonished to find these singular opinions agreeing with the information, which Milton’s archangel Raphael imparts to Adam, the father of mankind.[170]

“O Adam, one Almighty is, from whom
All things proceed, and up to him return,
If not depraved from good, created all
Such to perfection, one first matter all,
Indued with various forms, various degrees
Of substance, and in things that live, of life;
But more refin’d, more spirituous, and pure,
As nearer to him plac’d or nearer tending,
Each in their several active spheres assign’d,
_Till body up to spirit work_, in bounds
Proportioned to each kind. So from the root
Springs lighter the green stalk, from thence the leaves
More aery, last the bright consummate flower
Spirits odorous breathes: _flow’rs and their fruit,
Man’s nourishment, by gradual scale sublim’d,
To vital spirits aspire, to animal,
To intellectual_; give both life and sense,
Fancy and understanding; whence the soul
Reason receives, and reason is her being,
Discursive, or intuitive ―― ―― ――.”

This sort of hylozoism is more expanded in a particular system of cosmogony of the same Vahed,[171] according to which the materials of the world existed from the very beginning, which signifies from the first appearance of _afrad_, “rudimental units.” We can never think meanly of this opinion, when we find it coinciding with that of _Leibnitz_ in our seventeenth century, contemporary of Mohsan Fani. According to the celebrated German philosopher,[172] there exists already an entirely organical preformation in the seeds of the bodies which are born, and all souls had always pre-existed in some sort of organized body, and shall after death remain united with an organic whole; because in the order of nature souls are not likely to exist entirely separated from any kind of body. In the eighteenth century _Bonnet_, a great physiologist, maintained,[173] that all was preformed from the beginning, nothing engendered; all organized bodies were pre-existing in a very small compass in the germs, in which souls may also pre-exist, these indestructible germs may sojourn in such or such a body until the moment of its decomposition, then pass, without the least alteration, into another body, from this into a third, and so on; each of the germs incloses another imperishable germ, which will be developed but in a future state of our planet, which is destined to experience a new revolution.

We see here the very same ideas, without any mutual communication, entertained in the East and the West, in ancient and modern times.